Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Present your argument - S&W 4013 or Ruger SR1911CMD

I have handled and fired 3rd generation Smiths enough to know I wouldn't buy one (now). Not that there was anything wrong with them at the time they were current. Just that there are so many better options.

The Ruger SR1911? Well - that's a matter of if you have to ask, you probably should look elsewhere. It's true that 1911's as a group are not as reliable as a lot of guns, but when they're done right, they work - and, well, if you have to ask.....
Anyway - I have yet to see or hear of any problems with the Ruger other than the initial bad run front sights. IIRC, Glock had a similar problem (and worse) early on. My SR1911 continues to run flawlessly, and I picked it up fairly early in the run.

Bottom line...between those two guns...no way I'd pay money for the Smith. The Ruger, like any other 1911.....if you don't know what makes it tick, you might want to pass.

Bottom line...between those two guns...no way I'd pay money for the Smith. The Ruger, like any other 1911.....if you don't know what makes it tick, you might want to pass. [/quote]

I think you made my point for me. The 4013 (any 3rd gen Smith) in stock form is utterly reliable. The same cannot be said for 1911s as a group. I do know what makes 1911s run. I fired my first one in 1970 and plenty more since. I bought my first 3rd gen Smith, a 4506, in 1988 and it ran rings around any pistol I'd ever fired. That one was stolen in 1990 but I replaced it and still own that one. I've handled and fired Glocks as well but have no reason to own one. My brother, retired LEO, owns two Glocks and loves them. But the Glock wasn't part of this argument. FNs, Sigs, I've owned most of them but none of them have approached the Smith in terms of reliability.

You don't need to know what makes the Smith tick. There's nothing finicky about it, no tweaking required - just load up with any bullet you like and go to work.

no one is dismissive, there are just better choices currently.

Still no way I'd buy the Smith - now. If I already had one, I might keep it for nostalgic reasons, or if someone all but gave it to me....maybe. But in reality, it is about as archaic a design as the 1911. More reliable than a lot of non-spec 1911's maybe, but still just as outclassed by many newer designs.

That is why my answer for the OP would be "neither".

The Glock is not part of the discussion, but they always are thrown in and I know why. I carry one in various sizes and calibers often. VERY often. I even stated the Smith would probably not kick my G26/G19/G23 out of my daily rotation.

The discussion puts these two specific pistols on the kitchen table, with their mags, your preferred ammo and your chosen carry method, and gives a choice as to which would you pick to head out into the unknown.

I'm not a first-time buyer. Have a pretty good collection.
So it is not about recommendations or personal preference outside these two pistols.

I can say I'm old enough to have received good training on both the 1911A1 and traditional DA/SA autos. Some folks can't remember when anything other than Glocks have been issued for gov't or LE. That's just modern times.

All good points presented, and my next situational discussion may involve something even older against something brand new!

This. I like the 3Gen S&Ws, quite a bit, as well as the 1911. However, if buying for the purposes stated, there are better choices.

I'd argue that either platform has proven they could handle the challenges they faced "in their day" and at one time were cutting edge technology. And would probably do the same today outside of true military combat requirements.
The improvements in the "newer" Ruger SR1911CMD maybe give it some advantage over the same 1990's Commanders available then.

Scenerio is, you find yourself unarmed... (Me? Never! LOL!) and at a friend/family member/associate's home. Something REALLY bad has happened and you have to choose from a firearm being offered from his/her collection. Even just for temporary use. I doubt anyone will simply say "no thanks" and get a knife from the kitchen butcher block and call it good.

I had a second generation Smith auto that had to go back for service because of hammer follow necessitating a restrike from DA. In addition, the safety lever on the right side of the gun constantly was getting loose. As I alluded to earlier, the DA/SA transition is a needless hassle, and I migrated to DAO versions of the same guns back in the day. (E.g. DAO Beretta 92/96 models.) The safety also is more difficult to deal with if I forgot to swipe it off or it got engaged accidentally, unlike the 1911 design. As an additional disadvantage, it is easy to engage the safety by accident when retracting the slide.

I'd take the Ruger. It also would be easier to offload if it didn't work out.

If the Commander was a lightweight I would take it hands down.

I had lots of four digit Smiths at LE quals in the mid 90's when they were all the rage. They were decent pistols, generally better than early S&W autos. But they were not perfect and I've seen them tap-racked-banged like everything else.

Oh, so that's it. A hypothetical.....

Well, hypothetically...I would turn my nose up at the Smith and quickly disassemble the Ruger to check for any signs that it's been boogered on that kitchen table or any other. I'd put it back together and function test it - even manually cycle a couple of mags of rounds through it (assuming I have no opportunity to shoot it). Assuming I find nothing wrong with it (as I would expect if it is unmolested), I'd then load it up and get on about my business.

I'd bet even odds or better that the Ruger is as likely to run right as that old Smith. And with the 1911, at least I know what to look for and what to expect when checking it out. Besides...I'm going to shoot better with the 1911 anyway.

Shiet I just saw that. I'll shove the Smith in a back pocket, take the 1911 in my left hand and a 12" Old Hickory in my right.

Does the guy have an axe? I don't have any friends who don't know right where their axe is.

Best answer yet!

Exactly.

Quite frankly the immediate NO-GO for me is that it is a .40. Having fired a substantial amount of various duty type semi auto handguns in 9mm, .40 and .45, I have noted that the .40 is almost always the least accurate of the 3, in similar platforms. That was definitely the case for 3rd gen Smiths.

Speaking of Smiths, the full size M&P .40 I was issued had to be the all time worst shooting handgun I have ever been issued. The 25 yard targets looked like Improved Cylinder patterns.

The Compact M&P .40 I was later issued was substantially more accurate than the full size version, but it was still a piss poor shooter as compared to similar sized 9mm handguns.

In fact one day while at the range I recall telling the mouth breathing retard that was in charge of the agency's firearms program that the M&P .40s were the single worst grouping handgun I had ever had the displeasure of being forced to carry.

The dumbphuck made a comment that perhaps it was the shooter. I then went to my gear bag, pulled out a Glock 19 and put 16 rounds from the 25 yard line into the head box of the qual target.

I pointed to the target and asked him to explain the fact that the Glock could shoot 3" groups at 25 yards, but the M&P .40 was shooting 12"-15" groups at the same distance.

He would not answer the question, and went to the other end of the line.

Of course this was the same blowhard who could barely qualify, had never been in a gunfight, yet felt compelled to teach everyone his own version of "gunfighter skills", which I swear must have been based off of watching action movies.

Back to better choices...

A CZ-75 SP01 would be a nice choice if a person is allergic to polymer from Austria.

Odd... the first M&P45 fullsize I shot was not particularly accurate. Shot a fullsize 9 that was just OK. We've got two MP40c's here now and mine looks to be about 2 1/2"st 25 yards and 4-4 1/2" at 50 with decent ammo; or about equal to the best shooting fullsize Glocks I've had ahold of. I've been tempted to try a fullsize M&P40 but the sorry 45 and the lukewarm 9 I shot are still fresh in my memory.

I'll part company with you on the 40, Sagebrush. In a decent pistol it is as accurate as any other service cartridge.

You are right. That would be a hard decision. However, I'd probably take my 40 over the 45. Only because it holds 11 rounds vs. 8...


And yes, my 40 is damn accurate..

I've been to a lot of bowling pin shoots and have shot against guys with your same attitude. I love taking your money...

And what, exactly, is that supposed to mean?